Take the supersaturates of diabetes inducing sugar out of our beverages.The cardiovascular diesease inducing trans-fat out of our food.The pink slime out of our meat.The industrial food process out of our health-care costs.

And if he doesn't purchase insurance? And those that can't afford it? Who will pay for them?

The funny thing is that I was repeatedly berated here for calling Obamacare a tax. It will be interesting to see how this fleshes out. On the upside for Obama, he got his bill. On the downside, it could be a "read my lips" situation for him.

Ah, so a descendent of the conservative market-based health care plan designed by the Heritage Foundation that suddenly became "socialism" when the Clintons got interested in it finally got passed. What a dark day for conservatives who favor market-based solutions.

HulkHands:Can't force you to have health insurance, but they can tax you for it

So this just exposes yet again how big of a liar Obama is. He repeatedly and forcefully told the US in public that this was in no means a tax while at the same time he has his lawyers argue in court that this IS a tax.

His campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on anybody earning over (what was it?) $250,000 has now just been verified by SCOTUS as a lie. He just raised taxes on the poorest of the poor. I wonder if Roberts intentionally gave the Repubes a campaign issue to hammer on Obama with.

Thunderpipes:17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

90% of HSA plans will not qualify by the way. Remember when you could keep your current insurance? 14 million people use HSA plans. So over 12 million people will be forced to drop their plans or pay more just on that alone.

It is a loss for Obama, Vodka posting moron. He will lost millions of votes because of this. The Medicaid part screws his plans, and all America loses. This is bad news, for Obama.

Oh wow, I've not seen this phrase used unironically in years. That's just beautiful. Gonna go on about the statisticals next?

weave:What's best about this is the wingnuts planned the word Obamacare to be a derogatory term but now it will live for decades as a term giving a Democrat credit for something that they'll never be able to get rid of because people would go ape about it.

Nah... in time they will say it was modeled on a plan created by conservatives, on a plan implemented by a Republican governor... that THEY created it... and that it could not have passed without the help of Republicans in Congress... before you know it, the dumbshiats will be running around calling it ConservaCare of RomneyCare and saying that Obama botched it and nearly tanked the whole damn thing.

First SCOTUS ruled that the state can seize your property and turn it over to a corporation of its choosing.

Then it ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money to influence the political process.

Now it has ruled that the state can force you to buy a product from a corporation of its choosing.

If you object to any of this, there is a law on the books (which no one has "standing" to challenge) which allows the state to declare you a "terrorist" based on secret evidence that you are not allowed to see, and based on this to subject you to indefinite detention and/or extra-judicial execution.

Sounds like everything is in place now.

How is paying a tax if you don't "forcing you". Is the income tax "forcing you" not to make an income?

Thunderpipes:Weird, Obama stated over and over this is not a tax. Now he argues it is.

At least they shot down the forced Medicaid expansion. That will throw a big wrench into his plans. 26 states can tell Obama and the Feds to suck it now, and they will.

Still scary. Means Congress can regulate your behavior via taxes. Vote Republican? Obama can impose a tax on you. Buy an American car? Obama can impose a tax on you. Christian? Obama can impose a tax on you.

Now liberals, if we get a Republican advantage, how about we implement a tax on the unemployed? No job? Fine, pay a tax. I know you think you just won, but you just screwed everyone equally with another erosion of individual rights.

Oh, my. You are spectacularly dense.

1. SCOTUS called it a tax2. We've established that behavior can be regulated with taxes for decades (what's that tax on cigarettes again?)

I don't think there's any other possibility. Wait and see what happens now that the "reform" has made for a whole new crop of captive customers and there's still no control for health care costs. When it all comes tumbling down, single payer will be the only option left.

dwrash:Striking down the medicaid expansion part is going to make implementation interesting..

You think this is actually about whether the program will work? That's cute.

it's about point-scoring and power. Whether this makes anybody healthier is quite beside the point. 45 years worth of a colossal state Medicaid program with all the bells and whistles hasn't made poor New Yorkers any noticeably healthier than their poor counterparts elsewhere.

jayhawk88:Man I can't wait until my nutjob extended family members get home tonight and start tearing up Facebook.

Haha, I'm with you there. I have a cousin who, no lie, named his kid Rush. He refuses to believe anything not told to him by Fox or conservative talk radio. Today is going to be an entertaining day, even if Obama is taking away all of my freedoms and dooming this country and raping my soul.

In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that he's entertaining the possibility that the health care law's individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis that's different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments.

For over a year now, observers and experts have assumed that the court's final decision will hinge on the extent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices could also upend that conventional wisdom, and in a worrying sign for the plaintiffs on Monday, Roberts unexpectedly highlighted one way they could do that.

In an exchange with a plaintiffs attorney, Roberts suggested he's skeptical that the mandate and its penalties can be treated separately and may have opened the door to finding that Congress' power to impose the mandate springs from its broad taxing power.

zipdog:Derek Force: So does this or does this not mean I have to wait in the ER for 3 hours because its filled with non-insured people who have the flu or a splinter?

Yes

This will mean you will be waiting for six hours because now everyone will at least have Medicaid insurance that no primary care doctors will take. This means 20 million more people will be going to the ER for both non-emergent concerns and for emergent conditions that they normally wouldn't have gone to the ER before the mandate for fear of going bankrupt. As an ER doc I will no longer be required to provide government mandated charity care as we as a nation will pay for those unable to afford insurance and will require those who can afford insurance to have it. Looks like I won't be having a problem staying busy at work.

On a more serious note, I'm kinda irritated by how all the reporting is told from a political perspective rather than a constitutional one. Why the discussion devolves to another commentary on the political horse race (how it benefits Obama, Roberts sides w/ the libs) rather than stay focused on the effects of the law & the constitutional arguments underpinning the opinion & dissent is just another example of how the media dumb themselves down.